Steem is a decentralized blockchain. And yes, there are such things as centralized blockchains, after all, blockchain became a buzz word, and many big companies want to be associated to it, but at the same time they want to call the shots and control the entire blockchain. Therefore, in most cases, they'll run centralized blockchains. They will obviously call them blockchains, leaving out the centralized part.
But let's get back to Steem.
The code of a blockchain is highly sensitive and complex. A little error can cause a big issue, and we have seen some in recent history of Steem.
Steem blockchain core code is also public and proposals to change it can be created by anyone. But those who decide if such a proposal is approved or not and added to the blockchain core, are blockchain devs at Steemit, Inc.
Every once in a while someone questions the fact that Steemit, Inc. has the power to approve or reject proposals to change blockchain code coming from the community.
Option 1. Let's say they are right, and Steemit, Inc. should not have the power to approve or reject code proposals to the blockchain.
Then we have two possibilities, as far as I can see:
1.1. Someone different can play the gatekeeper of the Steem blockchain
But who?
Witnesses? Some of them have technical abilities, but as far as I know very few would be able to understand the code entirely, not to mention grasping the implications of changes to it.
Imagine some changes to the wallet have the collateral effect of messing with people's balances, and that wasn't caught during testing. That would be a tombstone for Steem, so gatekeepers should really know the Steem blockchain code.
In the future, the gatekeepers should be more than from Steemit, Inc. Maybe it could be a ranking someone could climb based on expertise+vote of confidence of witnesses, until s(he) becomes a gatekeeper. Same about intermediary roles.
1.2. No gatekeeper.
I know we all like more freedom, but if we want Steem to keep going we cannot just allow anyone to change the code at will.
This is not really an option, I've just added it here, because logically it could be an alternative. But not if you think about the consequences.
Option 2. Steemit, Inc. should continue to be the gatekeeper of the blockchain code.
In this case, what community can do is assist. How? Steemit, Inc. is focused on their goals and it's probably good this way. You can't split your attention in a hundred directions, or you won't have any productivity.
I've seen yesterday a very interesting project of @reggaemuffin, who proposes a intermediary layer where more tests from the community on code added by Steemit, Inc. could take place, and it also could become a buffer between the community and Steemit, Inc. regarding developments to the blockchain, this way allowing the latter to focus better on their goals.